The risks posed by smart gadgets to the integrity of oral evidence

During a corporate dispute claim (UAB Business Enterprise & Anor v Oneta Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 543 (Ch)), it was discovered on day one of the trial that one of the Claimants had been receiving answers through smart glasses when giving evidence during cross-examination. It transpired that the smart glasses had been connected to his phone. Counsel for the Defence raised the alarm after becoming suspicious about the length of time and pauses taken by the Claimant before responding to questions.

The judge observed in her judgment that the Claimant “gave his evidence through an interpreter. Right at the start of his cross examination, he seemed to pause quite a bit before replying to the questions being asked. These questions were interpreted and then there was a pause before there was a reply. 

“After several questions, [the Defendant’s Counsel] then informed me that she could hear an interference coming from around [the Claimant]… The interpreter, who was sitting in the witness box alongside [the Claimant] confirmed to the court that she could also hear the interference …

“It was later ascertained that [the Claimant] was wearing smart glasses. I asked him to remove them before continuing with his cross examination. After a few further questions, when the interpreter was in the process of translating a question, [the Claimant’s] mobile phone started broadcasting out loud with the voice of someone talking. There was clearly someone on the mobile phone talking to [the Claimant]. He then removed his mobile phone from his inner jacket pocket. At my direction, the smart glasses and his mobile were placed into the hands of his solicitor.’

The outcome  

Unsurprisingly, the judge rejected the Claimant’s evidence in its entirety and ruled in favour of the Defendants, finding that the Claimant had been ‘untruthful in relation to his use about the smart glasses and in being coached through the smart glasses’.

The judge also found, when considering the reliability of the Claimant’s evidence, that ‘I do not consider that what is set out in his witness statements is actually his evidence in accordance with the statement of truth he signed’ after the Claimant was unable to satisfactorily respond to various matters when giving oral evidence.

Comment 

This case highlights the potential dangers of technological advances compromising the integrity of oral evidence and the importance of being alert to such possibilities, particularly with the growing market of smart items. The case offers a stark reminder of the likely consequences where the uses of such technology are discovered.